• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

e2160 Vs e6600 - a Melbourne720 Review

Associate
Joined
26 Sep 2006
Posts
1,945
Location
West Bridgford
Hi there

As I happened to have a e2160 handy a while back, I thought I'd do a direct comparison with a similarly clocked e6600 to see if this budget chip could stand up to its bigger brother.

e2160
Badged as a Pentium Dual Core, nevertheless it is based on the Core 2 Duo architecture but with only 1MB of cache. It has a multiplier of 9 and a default FSB of 800MHz (quad pumped). It is aimed at the budget market and costs £61.09 from OCuk.

e6600
This is a full Conroe chip, with Core 2 Duo architecture and a whopping 4MB of level 2 cache. It has a multiplier of 9 and a default FSB of 1066MHz (quad pumped). It is aimed at the premium market and costs £150.39 from OCuk.

In these tests, I am overclocking both chips to 3.015GHz. As they both have a x9 multi this means they will be running a FSB of 335 MHz (1340 quad pumped). They have been both tested for 8 hours Othos stability.
They are running on a BFG 680i motherboard, with 2GB of OCZ Platinum rev 2 PC6400 RAM at stock. The test rig also has a BFG 8800 GTS 640MB graphics card running at 600/900, and an X-Fi platinum. All benchmarks done at 1280 x 1024.


3d mark 01, 03, 05, 06

A classic test, but worth making just because everyone is so familiar with the numbers:-
conroe1.jpg

A big difference in 01, but the differences get less and less until there is only about 100 points difference in 06.


Doom 3 and Far Cry

Classic games, the standard bearers of any collection.
conroe2.jpg

Far Cry seems to have more of a CPU cache dependency, worth noting if that is your game of choice.
<speculation>
Could be an indicator of the forthcoming performance from Crysis...?
</speculation>


FEAR and Company of Heroes

conroe3.jpg

These are both modern games, a good test for the new architecture. There is a bigger difference in CoH than FEAR, but both seem to have good performance with the budget and premium chips.

Here are all those numbers in full, together with a Supreme Commander benchmark. Supreme Commander is well known to be very CPU dependant, so is a good test for these chips. Also present is SuperPi, another artificial benchmark that is well known.
conroe4.png

There is a hit on Supreme Commander, but not too bad (IMHO).

Conclusions

What these graphs tell us is perhaps what we already knew; that the e6600 is faster than the e2160, and that overclocking is cool! Perhaps what isn’t so well known, certainly outside enthusiast circles, is that having only 1MB of CPU level 2 cache isn’t a drag on performance in modern games. The e2160 holds it's own, and certainly didn't notice any slowdown through general operation of windows using the chip. I'd recommend it for medium budget games systems without hesitation.

The e2160 may be called a Pentium, but the similarities end there ;)
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2007
Posts
346
Location
York
Good review, does make me think that I could have gone with the e2160 and the cash I saved from my e6600 would have made it possible for me to afford a 8800gtx :eek:
 
Associate
OP
Joined
26 Sep 2006
Posts
1,945
Location
West Bridgford
dan1987 said:
Good review, does make me think that I could have gone with the e2160 and the cash I saved from my e6600 would have made it possible for me to afford a 8800gtx :eek:

It makes you think, doesn't it. I sold the e2160 chip to maddness on these forums, because I wanted to push my e6600 further. He has already had the e2160 up to 3.3GHz!
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2003
Posts
6,938
Location
Surrey
Very nice review ... cheers mate!

I'm looking to grab a C2D sometime within the next month or so and don't really know what to go for - prolly will end up going for somethin around the e6600 though as I play at 1600 x 1200 so coupled with a 2900xt or 640 GTS it would prolly make sense :)

Just got to figure out what mobo (really ain't kept up with that) and what ram to get ...
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2006
Posts
8,197
Thanks for the review :) It's nice.

Good to see a comparison like this that isn't going to be biased unlike some random review sites. But still it's good to see the e2160 able to not give a huge hit from the e6600. I guess it's only in wangmark and CPU intensive games that it gets a bit noticeable (like CoH).
 
Associate
OP
Joined
26 Sep 2006
Posts
1,945
Location
West Bridgford
TheOtherOption said:
Very nice review ... cheers mate!

No problem :)

TheOtherOption said:
I'm looking to grab a C2D sometime within the next month or so and don't really know what to go for - prolly will end up going for somethin around the e6600 though as I play at 1600 x 1200 so coupled with a 2900xt or 640 GTS it would prolly make sense :)

Or you could get an e2160 and an 8800 GTX for the same money ;)

And the e2180 is coming out with a 10x multi :eek:

TheOtherOption said:
Just got to figure out what mobo (really ain't kept up with that) and what ram to get ...

Well I did this with a BFG 680i, but I think the smart money is on a P35 motherboard from either Asus or Gigabyte.

RAM wise, the OCuk PC8500 stuff is looking good value for money.

Alex UK said:
Very good review. Looks as if in many games the 1MB cache is nearly irrelevant.

Agreed, that was more or less the conclusion I came to.

flibby said:
Good to see a comparison like this that isn't going to be biased unlike some random review sites. But still it's good to see the e2160 able to not give a huge hit from the e6600. I guess it's only in wangmark and CPU intensive games that it gets a bit noticeable (like CoH).

LOL wangmark

As more games use the CPU, perhaps this will change, but for things like first person shooters (e.g. Doom3, FEAR) it seems the cache doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2003
Posts
3,968
Location
UK
Sold my E6600 and got a E2160 which was just to put me on until the quads drop in price, turns out the E2160 clocks to 3.6 Ghz so I think i'll be keeping it a bit longer :)
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 Feb 2007
Posts
8,731
Location
Teesside
realy like that review.. makes me remember what overclocking is about not only the top scores but getting more for less money


simonnance said:
err...... HELL YES

like by a long way, C2D beats A64 clock for clock by a fair way, and it clocks better too.


nah there the same @ stock infact a64 beats c2d in some things its just once you start clocking the intel chip pwns...
 
Back
Top Bottom